Citizenship Amendment Bill and National Register of Citizens – The deadly mixture!

The Union Cabinet has once again approved the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). Sangh bhakts are defending it blindly. Some ‘neutrals’ are supporting it out of their concern for the 'persecuted religious minority' from neighboring countries, even as they actively contribute to the persecution of minority in India, through their voice or silence!

On the face of it, it may appear that providing asylum to persecuted minorities is a noble objective. However, I am convinced that the real motives of the CAB is simply sinister. The point I am making in this post is that the CAB has nothing to do with saving the persecuted religious minorities (It will not even protect the Tamilians who had to infiltrate into India, to escape persecution by Sri Lanka during the civil war days). Its only aim is to persecute India's largest religious minority- Muslims. Let me elaborate.

The CAB, as reported, is granting citizenship rights to all those Non-Muslim 'illegal migrants' from neighboring countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who infiltrated into Indian before December 2014. They just have to show that they were in India for five years- no matter how they entered India.

Will anyone verify whether these illegal migrants were really subjected to any persecution, before granting them citizenship? No. All proceedings against them will stand abated with the passing of CAB and they become Indian citizens.

Please note, the Bill is not prospective. It is not to grant asylum to people from religious persecution in the future. It is only for granting citizenship to those who had already migrated to India before December 2014- the cutoff date. No matter what their objective or motive was while illegally entering India.

So, what is the point?

The point is in reading the CAB with the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC).

By virtue of CAB, every person in India who can prove their presence in India before December 2014 can get automatic entry into NRC. Not so, for Indian Muslims. Muslims in India will be required to prove their continuous citizenship and residence from 1955 or whatever cutoff date is adopted for entry into NRC.  We all know how difficult and challenging it is to produce documents to the satisfaction of NRC officials, from the horror stories we get to hear from Assam NRC experience! At the same time, all other religious people will be protected by virtue of CAB.

Now you appreciate the danger?

With the passing of CAB and adoption of NRC, India's Muslims who cannot 'satisfy' the NRC officials will lose their citizenship, while all illegal migrants from neighboring countries will get admission into NRC if they belong to any of the other major religions of India!

Denial or discrimination in granting citizenship (or any other rights), based on one's religion is totally against the basic features of the Indian Constitution. Supreme Court has made it clear that Secular character is one of the basic features of our Constitution, which cannot even be amended by the Parliament!

If the intention is to grant protection to those who are persecuted on religious grounds why exclude Muslims alone? If Muslims are not subject to any persecution (as some claim), they don't have to be given any asylum on that ground. Citizenship should not be automatic on religious grounds.

Criminalizing abandonment of wives by Muslims alone (through a null & void triple talaq) was another example of such acts of discrimination by this Govt. If the intention was good, they could have made abandonment of wives by anyone (including for the lofty objectives like becoming the PM) a criminal offense!

So, the proposed CAB and NRC together will destroy the very idea of India, as we know it!

Now the question is, who all will allow it to be passed in the Parliament?

And if the Parliament cannot prevent this unconstitutional law from being passed, how soon and how effectively Indian Supreme Court will stand up to protect the very essence of the Constitution?

Keeping my fingers crossed on the future of India!

“We the Idiots” from “We the People”

The Telegraph said it openly and bluntly, “We the Idiots!”

The framers of the Indian Constitution drafted the document from the perspective of ‘We the People.’ However, when our constitutional institutions and worthy people occupying those positions acted in a late-night drama to install Devendra Fadnavis as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, they did everything on the basis of perspective that we are just a bunch of idiots and not a people!

A government which is installed secretly, taking advantage of the darkness of late night, cannot but be termed as an immoral child of darkness!

When I say this, I do not mean to claim that Indian politics was full of pristine virtues until the night of 22-23 November 2019. Throughout independent India’s history, politicians and political parties have acted in the worst manner whenever it suited them for capturing power. However, all such acts had the benefit of some or other loophole in the constitutional scheme of things. For example, look at the latest Supreme Court verdict that allowed Karnataka’s defector MLAs to contest the bye-elections despite being disqualified from the same assembly. Though the decision may not appeal to the sense of what is right, one cannot fault the Supreme Court because of the legal position or loophole existing as of today.

The same is the case with most government formations in the recent past. Nitish Kumar broke a pre-poll alliance that was running the government in Bihar only to join their opponent BJP to form another government. In Karnataka, MLAs from the ruling alliance were induced to resign from their posts to cause the fall of the existing government, and then inducted and given tickets for contesting the bye-elections by BJP. Most recently, in Haryana, BJP joined hands with their arch-rivals in the just concluded elections to form a coalition government. I am not even going to list all the other governments formed by BJP since Narendra Modi assumed power at Centre, from Kashmir to Goa to Manipur, using not so honourable tactics like threatening or purchasing of MLAs.  

Howsoever it may be desirable, honour is not a mandatory requirement in politics and all these government formations (and scores of others by other ruling parties in the past) can be defended as (much abused) Chanakya’s strategy that took advantage of the existing loopholes in the system.

Let us be practical. In a multiparty representational democracy when no single party or alliance manages to get a simple majority to form the government, the parties that contested elections against each other may have to come together to form post-poll alliances and assume the power. Otherwise, we will end up with perennial reelections until one party or alliance manages to get the majority.

Since post-poll alliances cannot be wished away, there is nothing wrong (legally, even if not ideologically or morally) if BJP and NCP decide to come together and form a government. So is the case when ideological opponents like Congress and Shivsena decide to form a coalition government.

There is nothing wrong in such attempts per se, at least from the constitutional perspective.

In all such attempts at government formations, the ruling party at the Centre is likely to have some advantage over the opposition, mainly owing to the role of Centre’s nominee, the Governor acting as a biased arbitrator. There is no point denying these political realities.

However, when such attempts are made to form governments by creating a majority, it is the solemn duty of the Governors and other constitutional authorities to ensure that things are kept within the limits of the Constitution. As they say, at least the pretense of constitutional propriety must be maintained in everything that is done by these authorities. No matter, who got them appointed to the posts, these authorities have a duty to the people and the Constitution since they and their families are eating out of the salary received by them from the taxes paid by the people!

In the case of Maharashtra, it is now apparent that the Governor, the Prime Minister, and the President have all acted in an unconstitutional manner to install and illegal government. Ajit Pawar switched sides and took oath as part of this illegal government, without even the mandatory support of one-third of the MLAs. And to facilitate such an illegal act, the President agreed to withdraw the Governor’s rule in the dead of the night, without even insisting on the mandatory recommendation from the Cabinet.  There can be no two opinions that this act of the President was nowhere near the dignity of his office. If this presidential order can be compared with anything, it is only with the infamous order of declaring the Emergency in 1975.

Only a regime that treats the people as a mere bunch of idiots can undertake such gross violations of their duties and constitutional norms. It is in this context that the Main Heading of The Telegraph becomes apt and assumes critical importance for India’s polity.

Now we can only wait to see how the Supreme Court deals with its paramount duty of upholding the Indian Constitution. Will the Court act promptly in restoring the people’s confidence in our systems, or will it procrastinate and thereby provide adequate time and opportunity to BJP to indulge in horse-trading and cobbling up an immoral majority?

Until then ‘We the Idiots’ can only feel sorry of the Indian Constitution!

My Thoughts on the Patel-Nehru Controversy by Narendra Modi

Prime Minister Modi is entitled to his opinion that Sardar Patel would have made a better Prime Minister than Pundit Nehru. There is also nothing wrong in he expressing it in a speech, in the Parliament. 

Who knows? Perhaps India might have taken a different course with Sardar Patel as the PM. 

However, India or Congress Party cannot go back in time travel and change the history. It is too late to replace Nehru with Patel and test Modi's hypothesis!

I too have a similar opinion. 

Had BJP opted for any decent human being, to be the PM instead of Narendra Modi, it would have been beneficial to India!

A human being.......

who will not display his or her lack of decency in every speech, 

who will not abandon his or her spouse, 

who will not use one's own mother as a prop in public relation photo shoots,

who will not lie about his/her educational qualification, 

who will not lie on matters of his/her life even in sworn affidavits, 

who will not use blaming his/her illustrious predecessors as the only answer to any Parliamentary criticism, 

who will not maintain strategic silence when his/her foot soldiers are indulging in riots or lynchings, 

who will not conduct diplomacy in a way to benefit only his/her cronies, 

who will not favour his/her industrialist friends over a time tested organization like HAL,

who will not take ugly U-turns on all the policy matters that he or she used for getting votes, 

who will not use the sacrifices or dead bodies of soldiers to getting a few votes, 

who will not destroy time tested institutions and conventions without thinking through the consequences and alternates..............

This list can go on, but, I guess, is sufficient for any responsible political party to consider replacing it's nominee for the top job before it is not too late for that party and the Nation!

Delhi office of profit controversy: Why blame the ECI?

I am reading a lot of opinions, blaming Election Commission for recommending disqualification of AAP MLAs for holding office of profit. In my humble opinion, it is unfair to blame ECI for this just order. They are bound to adjudicate as per the laws, currently in force. The law is very clear. Even Sonia Gandhi had to resign from Parliament, under the same laws.

Yes, I agree that there are other states where the system of appointing MLAs as Parliamentary Secretaries or holders of such other posts is prevalent. However, those states have managed to create specific exclusions to the Office of profit laws, for those posts.

It s not that the Delhi Govt was not aware of the issue. On the contrary, the Delhi Legislative Assembly, had passed the Delhi Member of Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualification) (Amendment Bill), 2015, to exclude Parliamentary Secretaries from office of profit, with retrospective effect. If the contention of Kejriwal Govt is that the Parliamentary Secretary post does not fall under the category of office of profit, then why pass such an Bill?

In the case of Delhi, the infamous tussle between the Govt and Lt Governor has ensured that the Amendment Bill was not allowed to become the law. Hence, unlike other states, no such exemptions could be created for Delhi Assembly. I am not going into the merits of that tussle as the same is now before the Supreme Court for final decision. The fact of the matter is, the post held by those disqualified MLAs is not exempted under the existing laws.

Blame Lt Governor or Central Govt for not allowing the amendment. One may even call it discriminatory or against the principles of federalism. My limited point here is that ECI is right in disqualifying those MLAs. We should not be rushing to blame the constitutional authorities where they are acting within the scope of the letter and spirit of existing laws.

Before I end, let me state a general principle. MLAs are supposed to hold the Ministers (executive) to account in the Assembly. If these MLAs are holding any office under the same Ministers, they may not be able to discharge their constitutional responsibility in a free and fair manner. Some people are arguing that the Delhi Parliamentary Secretary posts did not involve any monetary benefits and, therefore, do not fall under the office of profit. My response is, the office of profit provisions are not there to prevent MLAs from getting some monetary benefits, but to ensure their independence from the will and command of the Executive.Can we expect a Secretary to question the Minister in the Assembly? Can we allow such a free run to the Executive, when there is virtually no opposition as in the case of Delhi?

So, I believe all unessential posts should be brought under the office of profit rule, rather than diluting the law by creating more exemptions. We have no dearth of efficient and qualified people that our MLAs and MPs have to be made secretaries to Ministers!

Kashmir: Freedom Vs Autonomy

 “My interactions in the state led me to conclude that when people ask for ‘Azadi’ most of them actually seek autonomy. Must consider areas to give autonomy to J&K. It’ll remain part of India but will have larger powers as promised under Article 370." - This is the exact reply made by Mr. Chidambaram on a question related to Kashmir unrest (Source: Indian Express).

Some leaders who think the nation is not its people but only some real estate and some others who don't understand the difference between freedom and autonomy, along with their followers have attacked Chidambaram for his opinion on this issue. Congress Party has also distanced from his statement, perhaps to limit the political damage from its misinterpretation.

In my opinion, every state and region has a legitimate right to seek more autonomy in matters that affect the day to day life of its people. So long as they are willing to recognize the sovereignty of India, there should be no problem with demands for autonomy.

The fact that the policy of 'only pellets and bullets' has already failed in solving the Kashmir issue is evident from Central Govt's decision to appoint an interlocutor, to commence negotiations with various stakeholders in Kashmir. If people of Kashmir are seeking more autonomy and NOT freedom from India, that is a good starting point for negotiations to solve the unrest.   

If anyone has any issue with giving autonomy to people of Kashmir should try and delete the Article 370 from the Constitution, instead of taking the high moral ground of pseudo-nationalism! So long Article 370 is a part of the Constitution, people of Kashmir has the right to seek more autonomy within the Indian Republic.

P.S: Many people are of the mistaken belief that Article 370 is the only provision within the Indian Constitution that provide special rights to people of a region!

When Journalism turns to mere PR: The story of ADB projecting 7% growth for Indian Economy

For me, the day began with reading two conflicting reports on Indian economy. The first one was a scathing indictment of the Finance Minister, by Yashwant Sinha a BJP member and former finance minister. He said, not speaking out anymore on the condition of Indian economy will amount to failing in his duty towards the nation. A notable point in his article was that the 5.7% of GDP growth rate achieved so far by Indian economy is equal to or less than 3.7% if we use the formula of Manmohan Singh’s period. That means, on an apple to apple comparison, Modi Govt has caused so much harm to the Indian economy and the result of an unbelievably low growth rate of 3.7% for the first half of this financial year.

The second was a news report on ADB's publication titled Asian Development Outlook 2017. As per the report, the ADB has reduced to the growth rate for Indian economy from an earlier projection of 7.4 % to 7%. Even though ADB is talking about a reduction of 0.4% in its projections, the news was presented as a great positive story. A 7% growth rate as against much lower rates suggested by many ‘anti-nationals’ including former PM Dr. Manmohan Singh and 'frustrated BJP leaders' like Swamy and Sinha! Here is ADB (with much more credibility) substantiating the greatness of Modi ji by saying India will grow at 7% in this financial year. What a slap on the face of all those who criticized Modi ji’s great financial initiatives like demonetization and half-baked GST!

Knowing the kind of journalism we have to live with in these days, I decided to check why ADB is giving out a projection that is so removed from the ground realities.  According to Govt’s own admission the first half of the financial year saw only a growth of 5.7%. If the growth for the whole year has to reach an average of 7%, Indian economy has to grow at a minimum of 8.3% for the second half! Given the admissions from Chief Economic Advisor and Finance Minister (forget all others, including SBI’s and various other doomsday reports) there is no way Indian economy can attain a growth of 8.3% in the remaining year.

So what is that the reports on ADB’s Asian Development Outlook 2017 was hiding from readers? Well, it was easy to find out. I just went to ADB site and downloaded the publication and looked at the basis for making such a projection. And there it was…The publication has clearly made a disclosure that the projections were made on the basis of data available up to 03 March 2017.

Now we all know, in the month of March, Modi and his followers were still in hope of the demonetization miracle. Since then, the reality has stuck even those who were pretending to be asleep. Adding to the problems was the introduction of GST. When lot of well-meaning people were cautioning about a hasty implementation, the daring Modi ji went ahead and implemented it without even an iota of worry as to how it will impact an economy which was already reeling under the impact of demonetization.

Anyone who comes across a prediction that says India will continue to grow at a decent 7% in this year, despite all these setbacks, should have immediately looked at the basis for such a prediction. If only they had looked, the reporters would have found that the prediction is based on such outdated data. Perhaps, the reporters merely wanted to gratify the Government and do their PR, rather than informing their readers? More so since reports after reports that speak anything against those in power are being taken down by the media houses!

Accidents of Birth

It was George Bernard Shaw who said:

“Patriotism is, fundamentally, a conviction that a particular country is the best in the world because you were born in it.” 

What a profound observation!

In fact, similar unfounded convictions of superiority relating to each group (linguistics, racist, regional, religious, caste....), based on the single most fact of one's being born in a particular group, is the cause behind most conflicts among humanity!

I wish we humans begin to value the accidents of our birth, a little less! 

Problems with Human Shields and Collective Punishment

(Initially published on News4Masses.com)

One day, my daughter who was then studying in fourth or fifth standard was very upset when she came back from her school. When I probed the reason, she said her physical education teacher had beaten her along with all other children of her class. I tried to defend the teacher by saying that the children must have done something very mischievous to make the teacher punish all students. But she was not convinced. She said only a couple of boys had made noise in the class for which the teacher punished the entire class. She also told me that this particular teacher was in the habit of handing over mass punishment, irrespective of who was at fault.

I then pacified my daughter by promising to intervene if the teacher repeated such an act, any time in the future.  It had taken only a couple of days before I was forced to act on my promise.  The same teacher repeated the mass punishment, this time for something done at the playground by one or two children.

I then wrote a letter, addressed to the Principal of the school explaining why it is not right to punish innocent children for the mistake of one or two of them. It is for the teacher to find out who is at fault before handing out the corporal punishment. If that is not done, the children will lose track of any differentiation between a right behavior and wrong behavior and get confused between rewards and punishments. If you have to undergo the punishment, irrespective of your innocence, you are likely to end up taking up those mistakes. I warned the school that if the concerned teacher repeats the act and subject my daughter to such physical punishment, I would be constrained to initiate legal proceedings against the teacher and school.  Needless to say, the teacher concerned was duly warned by the management and the habit of mass punishment came to an end.

I was reminded of this incident when I got to read some comments by the Chief of the Army (CAS), defending the use of a human shield by an Army team, in the state of Kashmir. The incidence in which a Kashmiri man was tied to the bonnet of an Army Jeep, to avoid the agitators from throwing stones at the Army team that was on its way to save the polling staff from any potential attack, was commended by the CAS as an innovative way to counter the dirty war. The CAS did not stop at merely defending such an act but awarded the officer involved with a commendation.

There are a lot of people who support the act of the officer concerned and the CAS defending and awarding the officer. There is also an equally strong view that the practice of using a human shield is against all the principles of an honourable fighting force like Indian Army and only goes to show the military of the country in a poor light. 

The purpose of this article is not to judge the act of the officer concerned. A commander has to take instant decisions in the face of hostility. While there are certain basic principles that the officer should ideally keep in mind, at times s/he may be forced to use out of the box thinking to overcome a difficult situation. Therefore, it will not be right for a person sitting far away from the theatre to say an act was needed or not.

In this article, I would like to look at the desirability of such a public defending or awarding the officer concerned. Some people say that the CAS did the right thing as he has to keep up the morale of his men. However, there are many issues with that line of thinking.

Any act, which is a war crime under the international laws, or a crime under the national laws, does not cease to be so even if it was resorted to under exceptional circumstances.  When such circumstances itself is a matter of inquiry, it is not right for the authorities to defend or condone such an illegal act.  That will amount to prejudging, or trying to influence the inquiry process. The exceptional circumstances may reduce the gravity of a crime, but the crime remains one. When the establishment decides to commend or award the perpetrators of such acts, it is like legitimizing an illegal or improper act.  We have just witnessed when the Indian Army as an institution decided to go against the Indian Constitution, Indian criminal laws, the Army Act, and its own standard operating procedures! When such disregard for the written rules is allowed, the consequences can be disastrous.

Secondly, in this particular instance, the victim has claimed that he was an innocent man who was out to cast his vote in the bye-election that was being held on that fateful day.  The polling percentage in that bye-election was only 7%. It is very easy to counter check the veracity of the man’s claim of being a voter, by merely looking at the votes polled. Despite that possibility, I have not heard anybody claiming that the victim had lied about casting his vote. When a man defied the threats and chose to cast his vote, the Indian state should have provided him all the support. Instead, an arm of the state stands accused of abducting him and using him as a human shield. Is that the way we are going to ensure the allegiance of more and more Kashmiris to the cause of Indian state?

Thirdly, what if the stone pelters were more hardliners and out of the box thinkers than our Army? What if they decided that their cause was more important than any one individual and pelted stones at the man and killed him? Would the Commander concerned or the CAS have assumed accountability for such an event?

Fourthly, if the victim himself was a stone pelter (as claimed by the officer concerned and a section of the media) why was he not arrested and prosecuted for that offense? Why was he let off after being used as a human shield?

Fifthly, what is the difference between a terrorist force and an armed force? Can the armed forces resort to any method in the name of innovation and dirty war? Can the Army forget that its objective is to keep the Kashmir and Kashmiris on the side of India and not to eliminate or subjugate them? Should Army seek fear from the citizens (as alluded by the CAS) or should it seek goodwill from the people?

Many people are supporting the act of the Army because it happened in Kashmir and the victim is a Kashmiri. Consider the outrage if a human shield was used by the Police forces in, say Kolkata, Bangalore, or Delhi. Even better, consider the victim tied to the bonnet of Army Jeep is any 'one of us' or 'one of our own'? 

Kashmir is a troubled area. A lot of Kashmiris are agitating against the Indian state and indulging in stone pelting. Does that make it right for the security forces to treat all Kashmiris as enemies of India (note that even enemies have rights under Geneva Convention) and treat them with no respect for their rights? Is it a policy of the current government to treat all Kashmiris as hostile and subject them to punishments like using them as human shields?

Whether an innocent child in the school or an innocent citizen in Kashmir, we cannot subject them to collective punishments for the crimes done by others. Can we hold the entire people of states in which the recent lynching of human beings took place (the number of such states is increasing), and punish them all for the murders? 

What differentiates good from the bad (and teachers from bullies or soldiers from mercenaries) is adherence to the rules of the game. Deviations may happen at times, but the deviations are to be treated as such and discouraged, and not given any exalted status.

Self-respect is a basic requirement for any human being. The victim, in this case, was subjected to unreasonable dangers and extreme humiliation. Can we reasonably expect this victim (or his near and dear) to love or respect our Army or the state, anymore? Fear, I am afraid, is not a long-term weapon!

Why Do They Keep Shouting ‘Go to Pakistan’?

(First published in News4Masses.com) 

                Until three years ago, when a self-confessed Hindu nationalist Mr. Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister of this country, the favorite insult of right wingers on social media was pseudo-seculars. Anyone who questioned their viewpoint or supported anything done by the then government were labeled as pseudo-seculars and accused of minority appeasement. Then it all changed, and the term pseudo-secular is hardly found in the mentions and comments. It appears that the term ‘anti-national’ has replaced pseudo-secular.

                When a ‘hostile’ government was in power, these people could hardly use the term anti-national because most of their campaigns went against the state and the nation as it existed then.  There was no hesitance to go after the government, judiciary, police or even armed forces.  They wanted everyone to be anti-government, and it is not so easy to distinguish between anti-national and anti-government. When Mr. Modi assumed the power, the whole narrative had to be changed, and the acts and deeds of the state supported at any cost!

                If we follow the current pattern, we see an eagerness among the right wingers to label everyone voicing a different view as anti-national and ask them to go to Pakistan or at least to leave India. On the face of it, such labelling, or commands to leave the country, is blatantly wrong. The nation is not anyone’s family property that one can keep asking other citizens to go away. Then, why do they keep doing that?

                To understand this phenomenon, we need to go back and look at the nature of the right wing in India. The continuing support to the type of policies being followed by Modi government clearly indicates that the so called right wing in India has nothing to do with rightist economic policies. This Govt does not subscribe to the liberal principles of ownership of one’s assets, or even one’s body and privacy. Look at its stand in the demonetization or Aadhaar issue and it becomes quite obvious. At times, Modi Govt’s policies are more leftist than the communists!

                What we term as right wing in India is less of economic right, and more of religious right. It was no accident or slip of tongue that Mr. Modi chose to describe himself as a ‘Hindu nationalist’ during the electioneering. The allegiance is not to an India envisaged by the Constitution, but a Hindu Rashtra envisaged by the parent body, RSS. That is why the term ‘Bhakts’ is more accurate to describe the supporters of this government than the term ‘right wing,’ which has some universally accepted characteristics grounded mainly in economics. 

                The primary binding factor for the Bhakts is the religion. However, in India religion alone cannot divide people into a clean Us vs They.  There are a large number of Hindus who do not subscribe to the RSS’s Hindutva. It is not easy to make every Hindu to follow the ideals of Sangh in the short or medium term. Bhakts and Sangh believe that the minds of these people were corrupted by the liberal or colonial education system and brainwashing by the evangelists and Islamists.  The political power. However, helps them to make a clean division between nationals and anti-nationals. Never mind how much they had opposed the previous governments, but now with a RSS backed government in power only anti-nationals can question its policies or acts. It is not surprise that the Sangh draws inspiration form the practices of religions to make the division!

                Religions usually demand strict and unquestioning adherence to its precepts. Religions create a lot of rules for the followers to obey. Any violation of these rules are termed sins, which are supposed to bring heavy consequences in this life or the forthcoming lives. The strategies may differ from religion to religion. One religion may demand confessions, another may demand penance, or confer rewards and punishments in the form of the fruits of one’s acts and deeds. All of them, however, demands complete obedience.

                The obedience sought by the religious forces is absolute. Stories of Abraham who readied himself to murder his young son on the command of his God, and Ekalavya who cut his thumb on the command of his Guru Dronacharya are the examples that readily comes to mind, while we can find any number of such examples from the religious myths.  The instrument of precepts, sins, and punishments is the effective tool that religious use to command absolute subservience from the followers.

Now that the political power has been captured, Bhakts would love to ensure similar unquestioning, absolute obedience to their government from all Indians. It is, therefore, their duty to keep reminding anyone who raises voice of dissent that it is a mortal sin to do so. Every voice against their regime is anti-national and fit to be punishment with a one way ticket to the ‘antithesis of their nation.’ Pakistan that came into existence as a Muslim nation is symbolic as an antithesis of the Hindu Rashtra. If the sins continue, then they will not hesitate to use more persuasive methods like physical attacks and lynching.

                Religions have perfected the art of creating a number of hard to avoid sins so that the followers remain guilty and apologetic all the time. The neo-nationalist Bhakts are also importing this strategy of sins, to make citizens defensive all the time, by creating too many anti-national acts!  They will shout anti-national at even small deviations in behavior so that the citizens will not dare to do of voice anything which is even slightly inconvenient to the government.

                A citizen is not expected to support anything and everything that the government, public servants, or armed forces of the country do. It is the duty of a citizen to be on constant vigil and ensure every wrong is called out and corrected. The demands like ‘go to Pakistan’ or abuses like ‘anti-national’ are inevitable when you point out the mistakes of a government that is founded on the religious nationalism.

                It is not easy to go against an organized religion or cult. It is also not easy to go against nationalist government of any religious persuasion. But then, who said democracy and liberty are easy to get or easy to maintain?!

P.S: When it really mattered, they did not take part in the Quit India movement. Today, they keep shouting ‘Quit India’!

The Life under Modi Govt as per the Economic Times Poll

Look at the results of a poll conducted by one of the leading business newspapers, The Economic Times, on the life under Modi Govt.

Q. 5 shows 66% of those who responded think that the prices and cost of living has not reduced under this Govt.
Q. 4 shows that 57% feels Swachh Bharat has failed to make their cities any cleaner!
Q 3 says 60% of the people feel that crimes against women and children has not reduced, as promised.
Q 2 says 58% of the responses believe healthcare facilities and other services have not improved!
Now look at the first question. 69% of the respondents feel optimistic about their family's future in India (presumably under the same Govt). Does it look like a paradox? Of course, unless the responses are influenced by any of the following:
1.      The responses are from cows or Gau Rakshaks who are not bothered about the impact of Q 2 to Q 5 on families.
2.     The responses are based on the optimism that the electorate will change this Govt in just another two years and, therefore, the situation relating to Q 2 to Q 5 is only a short term issue.
3.       The poll and the accompanying report are designed to serve the same Govt's public relation objectives.
Now, can there be any other logic which can possibly explain the optimistic feelings of 69% of the people who took part in this poll, towards their family's future life under this Govt, given their own view on each of the parameters?

Development: Narendra Modi Style

The impact of Narendra Modi’s demonetization and other master stroke actions/ inactions as reflected on the economic growth data:

April-Feb IIP at 0.4% vs 2.6% YoY

Feb IIP at -1.2% vs 2.7% in Jan

Feb mining output at 3.3% vs 5.3% in Jan

Feb manufacturing output at -2% vs 2.3% in Jan

Feb electricity output at 0.3% vs 3.9% in Jan

Feb capital goods output at -3.4% vs 10.7% in Jan

Feb consumer goods output at -5.6% vs -1% in Jan

Feb basic goods output at 2.4% vs 5.3% in Jan

Feb intermediate goods output at -0.2% vs -2.3% in Jan

But we have nothing to worry!

We don't hear about policy paralysis

We don't need a Lokpal or CVC or RTI anymore

We are having Congress Mukt Bharat

And Cows are having AchheDin!

Source for the statistics: @ETNowLive

Adityanath and Democracy: Some Thoughts

                Yogi Adityanath is the 21st Chief Minister of India’s most populous state (both in terms of voters and members of the Parliament), Uttar Pradesh. Having won 312 seats out of a total of 403 seats, the Bharatiya Janata Party was in a position to elect anyone as the next chief minister of UP.

                It took over a week and two deputy chief minister posts for the BJP and/ or its newly elected MLAs, to arrive at a consensus candidate in Yogi Adityanath. Because BJP had not announced any CM candidates before elections, the time taken for selecting one is not anything abnormal. However, if we juxtapose with what happened in Manipur and Goa where the single largest party (in both cases, Congress) lost the opportunity to present its legitimate claims to form governments as they could not elect their respective leaders in less than 24 hours from the announcement of the results, the delay of a week might itself have an underlying story of intra-party power struggle.

                The focus of this post is not how Adityanath won the chair, but on the reactions to his election. So many articles and social media posts have appeared on why BJP selected a highly controversial man to become the chief minister despite the favorable results. For a party that professes ‘Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas,’ there could not have been a worse choice. Some commentators blamed the RSS for forcing the hands of Narendra Modi. Some others saw this appointment as BJP shedding its pro-development agenda and embracing Hindutva (though I prefer the term Sangithva to indicate RSS ideology). Some others saw it as an indication of the failure of democracy that such a divisive personality has reached where he is today!

                All these commentators seem to have forgotten an important point. BJP is a tool in the hands of RSS. The ultimate objective of RSS is not development or Sab ka Saath, but the creation of a Hindu Rashtra. Development and such other slogans are mere steps on the ladder towards their main objective. Therefore, it is only natural that whenever and wherever they can do so, RSS will proceed with implementing the Sanghitva agenda.

                What about democracy? Can Adityanath’s ascension be considered as a failure of democracy? To answer this question, we need to understand the basic nature of our democratic system.  Democracy has never made any claims to be a perfect system for electing the ideal rulers. Winston Churchill had said, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.”  In the words of H. L. Mencken, “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." In my view, democracy has demonstrated both collective wisdom and collective folly, at different points in time.

                 Democracy as a system functions at two levels. The first level involves electing a government. The method adopted for electing the government is the majority approval. This majority takes different forms such as absolute majority, proportional representation, and first past the post. We have chosen the method of first past the post in which whoever manages to get the maximum number of votes is declared the winner, irrespective of the share in the total votes. As a result, a person garnering even 20 or 25% of the total votes can win in a multi-cornered election. Each method has its merits and demerits, and any change in the system cannot achieve any substantial difference in the quality of the elected. 

              When political, linguistic, religious, caste or such other lines divide society, the elections will always be affected by such divisions. Uttar Pradesh was not known, at least recently, for purely political choices. The caste and religion have played a critical role in deciding the fortunes of candidates in Uttar Pradesh elections. This affliction is not limited to Uttar Pradesh. In the upcoming bye-election for Malappuram constituency in Kerala (caused by the demise of Mr. E Ahmed), the Indian Union Muslim League candidate Mr. Kunhalikkutty will be elected for sure, and the voting will be on religious grounds. I have seen such tendencies even in local body polls in Kerala, which is supposed to be more of a politically conscious society. When the religion or caste comes into play, the political differences takes a back seat! Same for the recent increase in the electoral successes of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen party. So, there is no point in singling out BJP or Hindu voters in electing who they consider are their representatives. Democracy cannot prevent such divisive voting, but provides protection against the consequences of whims and fancies of the elected leaders, through its second level of functioning.

              Democracy’s second level functioning is through the rule of law. In the absence of the rule of law, the brute majority in a society can be misused to subjugate any minority. The winners, irrespective of their numbers or vote share, are expected to play within established rules of governance. In India, we have the Constitution including the fundamental rights and basic features that would protect us from the shenanigans of any elected leader. A divisive leader like Yogi Adityanath can speak anything in his party forums. As a chief minister or any other constitutional authority, every leader is expected to behave within the boundaries of the established norms and laws.

             What follows is that the focus should not be in protesting the appointment of controversial leaders like Modi or Adityanath, or to dislodge any duly elected government, but to ensure that such governments function within our constitutional and legal framework.  We have to accept the weaknesses of the democracy, simply for want of any better system.

             Authoritative governments might be more successful in influencing the bureaucracy and judiciary, and subverting institutions of governance. There will be attempts to push their divisive agenda and to subjugate their perceived enemies. Such governments might even try to sabotage electoral processes and seek elimination of their ideological opponents from electoral politics (Congress Mukt Bharat is a slogan that indicates the undemocratic mindset of BJP and RSS. Same mindset can be seen in BJP’s shameless acts of capturing power in Goa, Manipur, and elsewhere, through questionable methods, despite electoral losses. I am not saying BJP should not have formed Govts with the support of outsiders, but the hurry and crudeness of it all could have been avoided).

              In the event of a weak opposition, pliant bureaucracy, and committed judiciary, the rule of law might suffer. Damage to the rule of law is the danger we need to guard against, and not the election of Yogi Adityanaths and Narendra Modis. If the rule of law remains intact, the people have the option to kick out the same leaders and ideology, in just five years. If the rule of law is affected, then the very existence of democracy could be in danger. Even the allegations against EVMs should be looked at from this perspective. Whatever is left of the opposition (thankfully, this mass is still a majority in India) and civil society has to be on guard, at all times, against any attempt to weaken the rule of law. The fundamental rights of each and every citizen has to be protected from any highhandedness of any government.

              The Media is in a powerful position to report, and mobilize public opinion against any undesirable steps from any government. Unfortunately, Indian Media appears not up to this challenge, unlike the US Media which is standing up against each and every wrong policy of their President.  Indian Media appears to be in a state where they are willing to prostrate even before they are asked merely to bend! The Media is busy whitewashing the excesses and normalizing the aberrant behaviors of the so called fringe, which is taking control of the main stage! That, in my opinion, is the main challenge before India. The public vigilance and public opinion should force our Media to follow their fundamental duties. If they fail to heed, the civil society must raise their voice through social media and other available means. More and more people should be made aware of the dangers from majoritarianism and authoritarian rulers.  The Hindus must be educated about the difference between Hinduism and Sanghitva, and why it makes sense to prevent the ascension of the latter.

              Political parties currently occupying the opposition space should play a leading role in creating awareness. In democracy, the role of the opposition is as critical as that of the ruling party. This role does not end with a loss in the elections.  Guard the rule of law and public interests (there will be enough opportunities with mercurial leaders like Adityanath in power) with utmost seriousness so that whenever the next elections comes, people will know whom to vote.

            Danger to democracy will not be from Adityanath, but our collective failure, if any, in guarding the rule of law and fundamental rights of each and every Indian citizen! 

Are We Doing the Parenting Right?

                During this week, I have come across many unrelated incidences on the social media that made me wonder as to what kind of parenting are we doing! We keep hearing about the bad behavior of the new generation, but can we the parents absolve ourselves from the blame?

                The incidences are not in any order. They are presented just as they are coming to my mind. The first one involved a former Editor of The Hindu, Ms. Malini Parthasarathy. When a well-meaning tweet of her was met with an abusive response, she chose to ask the person whether he was son of a particular lady and whether she would approve such a language.  Ms. Malini was trolled on Twitter for asking such a question. What surprised me was the response from the mother, Ms. VS Chandralekha a well-known Ex IAS officer and President of the (now defunct?) Janata Party.  Ms. Chandralekha’s reply to Malini was “I am a democrat and support my son Abhijit's freedom of expression however annoying it may be to others.” A democrat upholding the freedom of expression is fine, but a mother upholding the abusive language of her son? That too against a senior lady? I also found many people on Twitter celebrating the reply as a great thing! At least we should be sensitizing our children that the right to freedom of expression does not include a right to use abusive language against anyone!

                The second incident involved a CEO of a startup company who is now facing allegations of sexual harassment at workplace. I am not here to judge the veracity of allegations. What surprised me was the most insensitive responses to the allegations. Instead of being apologetic about failing to institute legally required measures to investigate and redress the grievances of the employee, I saw a lot tweets to justify the alleged acts of the CEO. It appears that for many people staring at a female colleague at workplace or telling her how tight or sexy her dress is, was all a part of the normal work routine! As per the reports the CEO has stated, "I am a heterosexual, single man and when I find a woman sexy, I tell her she is sexy."  Apparently, he is not even aware of the problem with his behavior. Who is to be blamed? What happened to our parental duties to teach the children about the need to respect others, especially the ladies? Can someone who is brought up with the right values justify staring at or otherwise harassing a lady colleague?

                Third incident involved the anchor of a prime time news show on India Today Television. Its anchor, Mr. Zakka Jacob announced his debate with a hashtag #PappuCantWinSaala. The trolls on social media use the term Pappu for denigrating Mr. Rahul Gandhi.  Can an anchor of a news channel use such derogatory terms against national politicians? It did not end there. Zakka Jacob came with another tweet, announcing the ‘taking down’ of the derogatory tweet. Looks at the language he used for the taking down: “In light of universal distaste at my last tweet, i am taking it down. please pardon my not-up-to-the mark Hindi.” Now the pardon is sought not for the use of a derogatory hashtag, but ‘not-up-to-the-mark Hindi’!  One may not agree with Rahul Gandhi on anything, but should people like Zakka Jacob misuse their platforms to insult Rahul and millions of Congress workers? Obviously, there was nothing ‘not up to the mark’ in his Hindi, but can we say the same about his upbringing?

                A few days back Kochi saw a protest from Shiv Sena (which does not even qualify to be termed a fringe party in Kerala) workers, wherein a handful of goons went around Marine Drive and caned young boys and girls who were sitting there. The objective of the drive was to protect the honour of young girls! And how they sought to do it? By caning them in public, that too in front of police officers! Back to the social media, I saw perfect gentlemen and ladies justifying these goons by saying that such interactions between boys and girls lead to Aids! They are convinced that every boy and girl sitting together in a public place are about to indulge in unprotected sex and catch Aids! The reaction to the moral policing was through another extreme act of Kiss of Love. People kissing each other in public as a form of protest! Is this the two extremes that we are teaching our children? Can’t a man and woman or a boy and girl share healthy friendship or even love, and spend some time together talking to each other? Even if they are indulging in any immoral acts, what gives the right to individuals to go around and beat them?

                In my view, all these seemingly unrelated incidences have a common thread. The lack of right values in our younger generation. The values get imbibed in a child not from hearing the parents, but from watching the parents and society. Somewhere in our busy schedules, we have forgotten our primary duty of parenting!

Is Demonetization an attack on Secularism?

I believe it is a curse on Economics that it does not have an independent existence in the real world. Whatever theory or however strong a model it may be, if and when brought to the real world it gets corrupted by various political and ideological pulls and pushes.

                When I was listening to a speech on the demonetization, the above thoughts came to my mind. The speech delivery was excellent, the audience was receptive, and it was happening in a public place, right in the middle of an evening crowd in a busy market. It was a great opportunity to educate common people across the political divide about the severe repercussions of the demonetization decision- both what is happening and what is likely to happen. 

                Since the talk was organized by a left leaning cultural group and the speaker was a leftist, I did expect some political colour. The speaker was eloquent on how the demonetization affected the equality and dignity of Indians. He painted it as an attack on the rights guaranteed under, and the basic features of, the Constitution.  He explained how the decision should be viewed as a step towards fascism.

Despite my anticipation of politics in the talk, I was a bit disappointed when it got concluded.  Two reasons caused my disappointment. First reason is that the speaker did not make use of the occasion to educate people about many potential consequences of the decision, both for themselves and the economy.  He did not touch upon the importance of choice in a democracy. He did not cover the possible role of new payment banks and digital money companies in forcing the cashless India concept. He touched upon neither the implications of digital payments on the privacy of individuals, nor the assaults on the independence of institutions like the Parliament and RBI.

Second reason is what made my jaws drop.  It was his interpretation of the demonetization decision as an attack on secularism! When the speaker argued that the decision is a part of the RSS agenda against minorities, it came as a surprise. The only fact that he used to substantiate the charge was the Union minister Giriraj Singh’s statement about the need to introduce compulsory sterilization to control the population.

I believe demonetization is perhaps the most secular decision implemented by Narendra Modi Govt. This decision has affected, adversely, every Indian irrespective of his caste and religion (perhaps the reason why even some of the Hindu religious organizations have chosen to criticize the step). The decision can be faulted for being tougher on the poorer sections of the society. But to say, it is a part of the agenda against minorities is beyond all my imagination.

Such an interpretation hardly made any sense to me, even politically. When you are addressing a public audience, and not any party followers, why not try and bring every sections of that audience to your side by sticking to logical and factual arguments (which are available in abundance)? Why divide the audience into secular and communal groups, even on a decision that has affected every one equally? Why preach to the already converted ones? Why not try and convince even those who are supporting Modi on communal lines about the damages that he is causing to the entire economy and people?

Perhaps, there may be hidden political motives for peddling such conspiracy theories, which may be attractive to a captive audience. I will never understand those ground level political motives. I can only wish, an economic disaster of this scale could be approached without seeking to further narrow political agendas. 

How Does the Fascism Look? - A Tribute to Mr. Leonard Cohen

                We keep hearing about the advent of fascism, and the need to fight it tooth and nail. The problem is that we cannot recognize the fascism when we experience it. It is often clocked in various themes like patriotism, nationalism, racism, religious superiority, or charity. Even worse, at times, it is just the plain ‘normal’.

                The legendary writer of rock music, Mr. Leonard Cohen, who passed away a few hours ago, had written a poem that demonstrates the challenges of recognizing fascism. As a tribute to the great writer, and as an all-time reminder on what fascism doesn’t look like, let me quote Mr. Cohen’s poem on the infamous Nazi-SS commander, Adolf Eichmann, who was among those responsible for organizing the Holocaust:

All there is to Know About Adolph Eichmann EYES: ………………………………… Medium HAIR: ………………………………… Medium WEIGHT: ………………..…………… Medium HEIGHT: ………………….………….. Medium DISTINGUISHING FEATURES: ….... None NUMBER OF FINGERS: ……………. Ten NUMBER OF TOES: ……………….... Ten INTELLIGENCE: …………………….. Medium What did you expect?         Talons?         Oversize Incisors?         Green Saliva?         Madness? -Leonard Cohen

(Source: http://apoemaday.tumblr.com/post/46510952657/all-there-is-to-know-about-adolf-eichmann)

                

         The fascism, Nazism, and other inhuman ideologies are not practiced by somebody with talons, oversize incisors, or green saliva, but ordinary looking people like you and me. It makes it all the more difficult to recognize such dangers to humanity, until it is too late. The only way we can save humanity from such evilness is to be on guard, at all times. Our complacency today could land us in concentrations camps, tomorrow!

NDTV India Ban, and We the People of India

Previous posts on this blog has made it amply clear that I am not a votary of absolute freedom of expression. I believe in reasonable restrictions on the freedom of expression when those restrictions can be linked rationally, to the larger interests of the society.

Let me also confess that I have not seen the programme aired by the NDTV India, on the Pathankot airbase, which earned the one day ban for itself. This posts is not about the merits of the NDTV programme or the decision of the Government. This post is about the procedural justice or lack of it in arriving at the decision.

Temporary ban on broadcasting is nothing new to Indian television.  Many channels have faced such temporary bans, usually on the grounds of obscenity and disrespect to women.  However, those channels like Fashion TV are not mainstream and the issue involved are not of much concern to the general public. Therefore, the public were not even aware of the ban in most cases and even when aware were not concerned about it.

NDTV India ban is perhaps the first, in relation to a news report. Power to ban TV channels or newspapers, vested in the hands of the executive is surely problematic, for various reasons. Firstly, concepts like public interest and national security are highly subjective and prone to misuse. Secondly, criticism of the government can easily be interpreted as one against national security. Thirdly, since the government is likely to be at the receiving end of such news reports any decision by the Government itself would amount to judging own affairs. Fourthly, the principles of natural justice demand that the accused party be given a proper opportunity to defend its case before a punitive action is taken. IN this case, NDTV India is not given an opportunity to state its case. Lastly, objective exercise of a power demands equal treatment of all complaints. There are allegations that the Information and Broadcasting Ministry is very selective in dealing with complaints against news reports.

There may be situations when a channel reports in a manner, which compromises an operation or national security. There is also no doubt that actions must be taken against such channels. However, the issue remains as to who should decide whether a report is against national security. If the Government of the day and its officers can decide and ban a Channel, then the media freedom is surely at peril. We have seen central ministers pontificating on the need to refrain from raising any questions even when all the available evidences indicate blatant murder by policemen in a staged fake encounter! Can a government act against news reports on such issues, by holding them as against national security?

The need for an independent authority to judge the appropriateness of a report cannot be overemphasized. A free and fair independent media is one of the cornerstones of the democracy. Brow beating by the executive, or undeclared bans like the one being witnessed in the courts of Kerala, can damage the democracy itself. Therefore, the NDTV India ban is not a trivial issue to be ignored by the society.

I am sure NDTV India will seek legal remedies against the ban. I hope the judiciary will stand up and protect the freedom of expression of the media, against the arbitrary onslaught by the executive. I am also worried that my hope in the judiciary may be misplaced, considering what is going on in the courts across Kerala.  Judiciary, right up to the Supreme Court has not, so far, shown any inclination to protect the people’s right to know and the media’s right to report what is happening in the courts. When the Judiciary is unable to deal with the hooliganism of a few lawyers, will it be able to stand up to the might of Union Government and protect the guaranteed freedoms? I would love to remain optimistic, at least for the sake of democracy.

 I am not as sure about the media as a whole standing up in solidarity with NDTV India, in this critical hour. Ideally, I would like to see the entire news media going off the air on November 9^th in solidarity with NDTV India. Jointly going off the air is the best way to inform the Executive that any attack on the freedom of media will be resisted, jointly.  However, the compromised corporate ownership and selfie-journalism may prevent the media, to take such a principled stand on November 9^th.

If the judiciary and media are not able to live up to the expectations, we the people of India will have to intervene and play an important role. After all, when the freedom to report is curtailed it is our right to know what is going on, is affected. If the media’s powers are curtailed today, it will not be too long before our civil rights are also attacked. The ‘Emergency’ is merely a term that indicates certain situation. Even without the use of the term ‘emergency’ we might end up in an emergency like situation, if we do not strive safeguard our own constitutional rights.

Let us, the people of India, stand in solidarity with the right to report, right to fair trial, and right to justice, and boycott all Television News Channels for a day on November 9^th.  Let this boycott be a message to both the executive and the media that 2016 is not 1976 and emergency like measures will not be tolerated, anymore. Let us think above our political differences and affiliations, and take a united stand against arbitrary decisions that affect our fundamental rights.